Do Amine Orbitals Change Shape with Electron Donating Groups?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the size and shape of the nitrogen's lone pair orbital change when electron donating groups, like methyl, are added. While it is acknowledged that electron availability increases, leading to enhanced basicity, the orbital in question is identified as an SP3 orbital rather than a p orbital. The presence of electron donating groups may influence the orbital characteristics, but the overall impact on basicity is often overshadowed by steric and solvation effects in alkyl amines. Therefore, the focus on orbital size may not be as significant in determining the properties of these compounds. Understanding these nuances is essential for grasping the behavior of amines in organic chemistry.
ChiralWaltz
Messages
161
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Does the size of the p orbital with the lone pair change when adding electron donating groups, such as methyl?

Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


I know the electron availability increases on the nitrogen's lone pair, making it a better base, but I'm wondering if the orbital shape changes. I think the p orbital would increase in size with an electron donating group. Should I be thinking of orbitals in a static sense (unchanging shape) with a particular atom or do the orbitals' shape change depending on the electron withdrawing/donating group?

Let's say I want to attach more methyl groups to the amine, does the nitrogen orbital with the lone pair get even bigger?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is likely a shape change due to the electron donating groups but you should understand that the orbital in question is not a p orbital. It is an SP3 orbital. Also, it is generally not very helpful to focus on the size of the orbital in alkyl amines as other effects like steric and solvation usually dominate the basicity of alkyl amines.
 
Thank you for clearing this up for me.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top